DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Balance of Funding Review

Nick Raynsford: In fulfilment of the commitment that we made in the December 2001 White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", we are establishing a review to examine the balance of funding between locally raised and centrally provided sources of revenue for local government.
	The review will consider what are the key issues associated with the balance of funding, review the evidence and look at reform options.
	The Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions, will chair the review steering group. The first meeting of the steering group will be in April 2003. We will announce the membership of the steering group, which will include ministers, senior figures from local government and others able to make a strong personal contribution to the discussions, ahead of the first meeting.
	We expect the review to last for about a year. We envisage that the final report of the review will summarise the main issues discussed by the steering group and will set out the pros and cons of a range of options for changing the balance of funding.
	I am placing a copy of the review's terms of reference in the Library of the House of Commons.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Animals (Scientific Procedures)

Bob Ainsworth: The Government have today published their reply to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on animals in scientific procedures published on 24 July 2002. Copies of the Government's response (Cm 5729) have been placed in the Library.
	The Government welcome the Select Committee's report, which deals with important and sensitive issues concerning the use of animals in scientific procedures. The Select Committee's report is comprehensive, makes an important contribution to the ongoing debate, and provides a credible basis for all concerned to consider where we should be going from here.
	The Government notes in particular, and endorses, the Select Committee's finding that animal experiments are currently necessary to develop human and veterinary medicines and to protect humans, and the environment. We also welcome the Select Committee's recognition of the progress that has been made since 1987 in reducing the number of animals used in scientific procedures and in establishing a culture of care in establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is widely regarded as the most rigorous piece of legislation of its type in the world. The Government also accepts that more needs to be done and we reconfirm our commitment to the fullest possible application of the 3Rs—the refinement of scientific procedures, the reduction in numbers of animals used and their replacement wherever possible. We also agree that the case put forward by the Select Committee for a United Kingdom centre for the 3Rs focused largely, but not exclusively, on toxicity testing, as a complement to other initiatives in this area, is worth exploring further. At the same time, we remain firmly of the view that the development of the 3Rs must continue to be an integral part of mainstream research programmes and toxicity work, and should not be seen as a separate activity.
	The Government also notes the Select Committee's view that the United Kingdom should aim to have the best regulation of animal procedures, properly enforced, rather than the tightest regulation. The Government already strives for the most efficient and effective regulation. However, we believe that it is right that the 1986 Act imposes stringent criteria to be satisfied before licence authorities are granted. We further believe that this approach is essential to generate and maintain public confidence in the regulatory system. At the same time, we accept that the administrative burden must be kept to a minimum without compromising the welfare of the animals used. We will revisit this matter with the research community, with a view to the production of a revised application form/licence that all concerned accept is as simple and short as it can possibly be to meet statutory requirements.
	The Government also shares the Select Committee's view that there is a need for more open and better informed debate about the use of animals in scientific procedures. Government departments, industry, the scientific community and funders of such research all have an important role in explaining their legitimate use. We also believe that more good quality information should be made available to the public explaining the scientific work that is done using animals and the reasons for it. Subject to safeguards for personal and confidential information, we are, therefore, proposing to publish summaries of project licences as part of the Home Office publication scheme. However, we are conscious that there remains a significant level of concern in the scientific community about the implications of repealing section 24 of the 1986 Act, as the Select Committee recommends. We, therefore, intend to consult further with the scientific community before reaching final decisions on its future.

Commission for Racial Equality

David Blunkett: Recruitment of a new Chair for the Commission for Racial Equality has been completed and I am pleased to announce that Mr. Trevor Phillips has today been appointed.
	Trevor Phillips is currently an elected member of the Greater London Assembly, Chair of the Assembly and Managing Director of Pepper Production. The appointment is for four years initially.
	Trevor Phillips was selected after a rigorous and thorough process. He has a clear understanding of the challenges of race equality and how they link to a wider diversity, community cohesion and regeneration agenda.
	I am confident that he will provide the leadership that the Commission needs to play an active role in the race relations agenda, while strengthening and focusing its internal organisation.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Horticulture Research International

Elliot Morley: We are grateful to the Quinquennial Review team for their detailed and incisive report published on 23 September on which we have now consulted widely. The review team have considered the responses to the public consultation exercise which concluded on 18 November and produced an addendum to their report, which I am placing in the Library of the House.
	We understand the importance of reaching early conclusions from the viewpoint of HRI's staff, their customers and other stakeholders. This interim announcement, pending further detailed study and negotiations, sets out our intentions.
	The Government broadly accept the general tenor of the review team's analysis and recommendations. There is a clear need for skilled and strategic horticultural science to underpin our policies and industry needs. HRI is a substantial asset of horticultural science excellence. In its present form, however, HRI is not viable and needs to be rationalised.
	DEFRA will now enter into detailed discussions with HRI and other parties, in particular the University of Warwick and the East Malling Trust for Horticultural Research, to establish whether the scenarios recommended by the review team are achievable and affordable, and whether any further Government investment is necessary.
	We hope to reach detailed decisions in principle about the future of HRI by the end of March 2003. Matters for consideration will include the remit and research capacity of the successor arrangements; ownership of land and buildings; staffing and pension matters; and income sources. Subject to satisfactory negotiations, the plan would be to put in place the new arrangements for HRI's future by 1 April 2004.
	In the meantime, HRI will continue as currently constituted. A programme of research is in place from DEFRA, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and other funders. We shall take steps to ensure that any transfer to successor organisations occurs as quickly and as seamlessly as possible in a way that enables HRI to meet all of its commitments.